Grouper Users - Open Discussion List

["Omaraie, Brad" <>]

Hi Chris,

Yes, we are talking union here. I tested your suggestion and it worked just fine. But when I brought up the subject with our management team here, they wanted to know what is the difference between union and group of groups then? If they are the same, why do we have them separately? In other word, what are the pros and cons of using group of groups solution vs cascaded composites?

Thanks,

Brad

From: "" <>
Date: Monday, September 2, 2013 8:08 PM
To: ucla <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: RE: Composite group with more than two groups contained

Are you talking about union?  If it is union, you should never use union, just add the groups as members of the parent group.  Ok?

 

Are you talking about intersection?  If it is intersection, then you either need a lot of composites, or you need rules.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

From: Omaraie, Brad []
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:29 PM
To: Chris Hyzer
Subject: Composite group with more than two groups contained

 

Hi Chris,

Just a quick question. We need to create a composite group for one of our clients that has about twelve groups included in it. By that I mean a member of each of these twelve groups should also be a member of our composite group. Currently grouper UI allows us to create a composite group from a logical combination of two groups at a time. I know we can cascade multiple composite groups and finally get to a group that has all the members of the twelve groups in it, but I was wondering is there a way that we can directly create only one composite group  containing all these groups?

 

Thanks,

Brad